Yeah, thanks. I've seen that, though I appreciate your posting it. What I haven't seen is an explanation of why the exterior looks like a plain carbon weave. Neither silicon carbide nor most ceramics are transparent, but most resin systems *are* transparent. I would expect a mottled appearance, but what I see looks exactly like a disc laid up with a standard epoxy resin.

I'm not saying that's damning in any way. I'm just saying I still haven't seen a full description of the materials and construction, and I stand by that for now. I'm sure everything will be illuminated post haste.

We can’t show you how they are made. We won’t hint at processing details. While the chemist did the heavy lifting on the SiCCC blend, that is one piece of the puzzle, the rest was how to manufacture efficiently. The patents are filed, but showing off is an ego thing. What does it matter to the guy riding it? Any company that allows cameras in the shop or shows off to media isn’t pushing the boundary far enough. Patents or no, you are just giving out details that people should have to earn.''

We can’t show you how they are made. We won’t hint at processing details. While the chemist did the heavy lifting on the SiCCC blend, that is one piece of the puzzle, the rest was how to manufacture efficiently. The patents are filed, but showing off is an ego thing. What does it matter to the guy riding it? Any company that allows cameras in the shop or shows off to media isn’t pushing the boundary far enough. Patents or no, you are just giving out details that people should have to earn.''

Comments like that worry me. You don't have to disclose everything but I for one would want to know what I am riding, especially as I work with carbon fibre so I would have a good idea whether it's fit for purpose or not. 'Any company that shows of to media......', so all the major bike brands aren't pushing the boundaries far enough.....or may be someone is just pushing them too far?

They could be fine, but I'll leave it for someone else to test them before i do!

IMHO, three Al and 3 Ti bolts are a silly arrangement. Here's why: titanium is 60% stiffer than aluminum. Because the titanium bolts are stiffer, they take the great majority of the shear load from the disc. Should your Ti bolt heads shear off, your Al bolts, much weaker than Ti, are all you've got. it's a great situation for sequential failure.

You could try to be clever and point out that, in terms of bolted joint theory, a brake disc-to-hub joint is a slip-critical interface, so relative bolt stiffness shouldn't matter much. There may be something to that, but ultimately, it's too vital a joint to screw around with.

To me, trying to pare a few tens of grams at the rotor bolts is a bit like autoerotic asphyxiation: it might seem like a good idea in the heat of the moment, but if you screw it up, you risk death and considerable public humiliation.

If it were me, I'd stick with six steel bolts on the front and, if I wanted to save weight, six aluminum bolts on the rear. (The max braking torque encountered by the rear wheel is much, much lower than that encountered by the rear wheel; ). Six Grade 5 (6/4) Ti bolts on the front are probably fine too.

We can’t show you how they are made. We won’t hint at processing details. While the chemist did the heavy lifting on the SiCCC blend, that is one piece of the puzzle, the rest was how to manufacture efficiently. The patents are filed, but showing off is an ego thing. What does it matter to the guy riding it? Any company that allows cameras in the shop or shows off to media isn’t pushing the boundary far enough. Patents or no, you are just giving out details that people should have to earn.''

That sets off alarm bells for me. If they've "filed the patents," they've disclosed their invention. Patent applications are disclosed publicly (i.e., put up on on the USPTO's web site) 18 months after they're filed. But the ideas are covered from the day of filing, especially now that the US has moved to a first-to-file system. These guys have no need to hide the basic details of their invention.

Kettle Cycles has zero credibility in the bike industry; they just launched a Kickstarter project and went from there. They didn't even file for their trademark until nearly November of 2012:

Kettle could be the most amazing company ever, but none of us has a reason to believe that given the evidence presented. Their product may work astonishingly well, but we really have no way to know. As an entirely out-of-the-blue company, it would behoove Kettle Cycles to be a bit more forthcoming about why their product is different from any of the other attempts to make composite rotors. An explanation wouldn't be showing off; it would be building trust.

As a counterexample, if this were Enve, I wouldn't be nearly as skeptical.

None of this is directly damning; none of this means Kettle won't live up to their promises. I'm not passing judgement on their product, but they provided nearly enough technical information to convince people this isn't vaporware. Maybe it is; maybe it isn't. As a consumer, I hope it isn't. But protestations that "people should have to earn" basic information about an entirely unproven product don't convince me the product might work; they only convince me that the protester has possible daddy isssues.

they just launched a Kickstarter project and went from there. They didn't even file for their trademark until nearly November of 2012

As one of the early backers of the Kickstarter campaign who has yet to receive the aforementioned SiCCC rotors and has had numerous emails inquiries go unanswered, so as a direct consumer I am super not impressed!

Ms60733, not sure how you are contacting them but I just got an email answered in 20 minutes using. Their info@kettlecycles.com address. Aaron told me that the February SFL 160mm and 180mm rotors will be shipping next week and the 140 mm rotors for Feb have already shipped.

Not sure what delivery you backed but I got on the Feb 160mm schedule so hopefully they will be in my hands before too long. I'm about a month behind my quoted delivery for my new King hubs which i ordered at the beginning of December so I understand everyone can run behind...

Ceramic brakes with carbon for reinforcement, not dissimilar to the purpose of re-bar in concrete.We didn't and don't want to try and convince every person one at a time, our plan of attack was get people to try them via the kickstarter 'introductory' pricing and let them spread the word of the performance.

The only Hitch, we picked what we feel is the best blend of modulation and bite. Personal preference may differ.

The beauty of what we did is that as they ship, you can modulate to hold a line but not stop momentum.However, if you want more static bike for that almost OTB grab, we will release variations of our Firewall Pads to get it.

We just didn't make the pads a priority because you really won't want them after you ride with modulation.Thanks again.A

Now with all of that being said, I am optimistic but cautious that these are the real deal and will work well. I suppose once people start putting some time on these rotors we will quickly know if they work or not..

Ceramic brakes with carbon for reinforcement, not dissimilar to the purpose of re-bar in concrete.

Okey doke: let me translate for the non-engineers on the forum. Aaron seems to be suggesting, in a very roundabout way, that they're sintering the ceramic component around the carbon. Fine, that may very well be what they're doing.

But Aaron (and Kettle) are so excruciatingly coy about all of this that it sets off alarm bells among engineering types. I'll take the liberty of asserting that we'd be fine if they said, "we found a unique way to sinter these components together, but we won't disclose the details yet." But they haven't done that, and instead are attempting to make "internet experts" "earn" the details. That's just silly.

(Also, the blurry cellphone photo could frankly be a shot of anything hot. I don't think they fabricated the photo, but it's hardly the doubt-resolving proof Aaron seems to think it is).

Mattias wrote:

Production behind closed doors, no patent files, no real world tests, no real pics, no user reviews.

This is a pretty concise summary of what rubs us doubters the wrong way. Even a photo of a glowing rotor on a brake dynamometer would go a long way towards dispelling our skepticism.

crohnsy wrote:

Now with all of that being said, I am optimistic but cautious that these are the real deal and will work well. I suppose once people start putting some time on these rotors we will quickly know if they work or not..

That attitude seems pretty reasonable. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, etc. We'll find out soon enough. I won't go as far as Mattias: if the product works as advertised, I may well pick up a set of these one day. But the Kettle Cycles people do seem to believe they're pretty damned clever; I'd hate to be seated next to one of them at a dinner party. I'm sure there's no immediate danger of that.

No patents filed here does only tell me one thing, they are using someone´s patent and hoping for going under the radar long enough.

If they did something groundbreaking, where´s the patents, they even paid one patent attorney, why no extra step for their manufacturing process?

Doing a disc glowing red in a dynamometer doesn´t tell me anything at all, I could chuck up a random brake disc in my lathe, kick it on 1500 rpm and smidge on my brake caliper and go for a coffee break, the result after the coffee break is apparent.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum